JUNGUIAN
WORLDVIEW
José Delgado
González. Psychologist and Junguian-oriented therapist.
Welcome to
Junguian Psychology. Today I am going to talk about the Jungian worldview, that
is, the way in which from the Junguian orientation we approach Psychology in
particular, and the world in general. At first, I am going to focus on some
fundamental guidelines that are part of the Jungian paradigm, that is, how we
understand the psyche from a Jungian orientation.
To begin
with, the object of study of psychology, as its very name indicates, is the
soul or psyche. Therefore, it is not reduced only to the rational or conscious
mind, and even less to the biology of the brain. The soul is the realm of
emotion and imagination, abandoned and cursed not only by science, but also by
the confessions.
One of the
fundamental issues that arises in the consultation is the way in which the
psyche is approached in the Western model of psychology. Thus, the aim is to
transpose to the study of the soul the somatic or biological model, more
typical of medicine than of psychology. Thus, the real object of treatment and
study of psychology disappears: the psyche or the soul.
As we said
above, the soul expresses itself in the realm of emotions and images. It is a
world of images that flows like the flowing of the waters, or is reflected in
the mirror of a fountain whose water returns to the place from which it came.
We psychologists observe it in dreams, in the imagination and in creative
activity (and, of course, in everything that the patient refers to). The psyche
is, in truth, an image of the world. Consciousness can
see the world from within when it observes the soul. Hence, all the conflicts
that occur in the world are also occurring in the psyche of the individuals who
participate in the world. The war in Ukraine is not only between Russia and
Ukraine, as other countries are involved and, in the end, two paradigms or ways
of seeing the world.
The
Russian-Ukrainian war is also taking place in the psyche of those of us who
live in these turbulent times. Today it is still ignored that each individual,
each person, is a brick in the structure of geopolitical organizations and,
therefore, participates in their conflicts. While it is true that people know
that, as individuals, they are unimportant and consider themselves victims of
uncontrollable powers (the Puebla group, the great magnates, the Euro-deputies,
etc.), it is no less true that every individual carries a dangerous shadow and
a terrible adversary who is implicated in the sinister machinations of the
political monster called government. It is an inherent part of politics to
always see evil in others, just as people have the tendency, almost impossible
to uproot, to offload everything they do not know about themselves by
attributing it to someone else. This tendency causes a separating and
alienating effect among the members of society, while the withdrawal of mutual
projections encourages understanding and the rapprochement of positions. But
for this to happen, self-criticism is essential, since one cannot order the
other to become aware of his or her projections.
For he will
not recognize them as his own in the same way that he does not recognize them
as his own. The only way to recognize prejudice and illusion is to start from a
general psychological knowledge that allows us to doubt the belief in the
accuracy of the things we suppose in order to compare them with objective
facts. It is curious that "self-criticism" is on the lips of
communist ideologies. However, this "self-criticism" is always
subordinated to the reason of state, that is, to its own reason and not to
truth and justice in the treatment of people among themselves. Communist
massification is not interested in mutual understanding, nor in the relations
between people, but rather in the mental isolation of people. The less
connected the individuals are, the more the state organization gains in
solidity, and vice versa, the more cohesive the individuals are, the less
important the state will be.
On the other
hand, modern psychiatry seems to suffer not only from a lack of knowledge of
the object of study of psychology, that is, the psyche or the soul, but also,
it would seem that it suffers from a lamentable lack of a true psychopathology.
The gods are no longer on Olympus, nor do we observe them in the activity of
nature. However, we see them at work in psychic ailments, creating pandemics
that are enhanced by the mass media and social networks. The pandemics that
have spread throughout the world like a malignant tumor are all those
ideologies of a mass character, which strip the individual of individual
freedom and of the necessary responsibility to take charge of his own life
project.
The
prevailing model in the current manual of mental disorders (DSM-V) is
descriptive, comes from a nineteenth-century paradigm, although the publication
of the first manual took place in the mid-twentieth century, and is composed of
a set of features that in practice is often impossible to apply to specific
cases.
In fact, seen
in detail, any person is likely to present several traits or diagnostic
criteria without suffering from any disorder or, also, there are overlaps that
give rise to comorbidities. Psychology is not reduced to human ethology, as
behavioral orientation claims. We repeat: psychology is the scientific study
of the psyche. In any case, psychology encompasses the study of behavior
and of the rational mind (cognitive as it is called in the academy), but it is
not exhausted with it. For the unconscious dimension, in which emotion and
image take precedence, is the true object of study of psychology. It is
precisely the repression or abandonment of the imagination, which characterizes
Western civilization and which began with the Enlightenment, that
is the causative factor of all current psychopathology.
It is at
least amusing, if not distressing, that the psychopathological model of
psychiatry is presented as atheoretical. This is certainly inconceivable, and
what happens is that the paradigm of psychiatry loses all its scientific
character. For, as we have been pointing out, its theoretical premises are
quite evident.
Cognitive
psychology, which is derived from a positive psychology by an American author, Martin
Seligman, aims to reduce the psychic to the mental. Thus, the object of
study of psychology, the soul, is confined solely to the realm of
consciousness. As if this were not enough, the aim of this approach is to
present a model for achieving happiness. Happiness, of course, would consist of
being socially successful. We should all learn from those who have succeeded.
Thus, the happiest people should be the most successful. Let us all become influencers,
let us all participate in operation triumph, let us all become
"gurus" of spirituality or let us all become rich and famous and,
with that, according to positive psychology, we will surely be happy and eat
partridge.
The great
problem of modern psychology and psychotherapy lies, on the other hand, in the
lack of scientific certainty about the importance of the moral attitude in the
treatment and cure of psychic disorders. It is
fundamental what the patient does with the psychic contents that provoke his
suffering and discomfort. That he integrates them into his consciousness and
takes responsibility for them is vital, not only for his cure, but also for the
maturation process that the Jungian psychological treatment promotes and
favors.
Finally, I
cannot fail to point out the philosophical reductionism that prevails in modern
psychiatry. It is reflected in the attempt to reduce everything psychic to a
neuronal functioning, so that the object of study of psychology, the soul,
disappears or vanishes in the treatment.
It is not
surprising that official psychiatry advocates the prescription of psychotropic
drugs, all derived from analgesics, with the aim of eradicating or reducing the
patient's pain or suffering. Of course, much progress has been made in research
on psychotropic drugs and they can be of great help to certain patients. But it
tends to become the first choice of treatment in the healthcare system. This diminishes or eliminates what is
fundamental in any psychotherapeutic treatment: the responsibility of the
conscious self to take charge of the contents that provoke its suffering. In
other words, the patient must take responsibility for his or her emotional
life.
This is
precisely where the patient's maturity lies and not, as official psychology
maintains, in the best adaptation to social reality. One can be psychically an
adolescent and be perfectly adapted to the public sphere. On the other hand,
the individuation or realization of the patient's depth requires that the
person be true to himself, to the voice that comes from the spirit that dwells
in his deepest immanence (the psyche).
Unfortunately,
modern psychology, as part of the spirit of this time, misunderstands the
meaning of the term self, which Jungians use to refer to the experience
of the sacred or numinous, to the core of the psyche, expressly differentiating
it from the ego as the center of consciousness.
This lack of
understanding, this manifest confusion between the personal and transpersonal
dimensions is expressed in the foolish equating of diligent attention to depth
with a kind of "spiritual narcissism". This is tantamount to
identifying individualism with individuation. Of course, this unconscious
identity tends to occur when a sufficient differentiation between the two
dimensions has not been achieved: one does not have the remotest idea of the
deep dimensions of the psyche, that is, of what we Jungian psychologists call
the collective unconscious.
It is
believed that, with the very unfortunate term of Spiritual
Narcissism, something singular or novel has been discovered, when in
reality it is a very frequent phenomenon, which can be traced in the history of
humanity, and which in Jungian psychology we call inflation of the
consciousness or, also, "possession" by the effect of an archetype.
The ancient Greeks called it heroic hybris.
Inflation
of consciousness or hybris occurs when the ego is affected by the action
of an archetype. For a certain period of time, the ego identifies itself with
the contents constellated or activated by the field of action of an archetype.
Examples of inflation due to the effect of the archetype of the social mask or
person are the order of the day in politicians, being especially evident in
presidents of the government, in ministers and in all those persons who
exercise functions in positions of work with certain power; they are also frequent
in general directors of large corporations, in doctors, psychiatrists,
professors, etc.
When
inflation is due to the action of the archetype of the self (or the mana
personality) then the ego may feel that it has superior knowledge, or that it
is spiritually superior to other human beings: an unconscious identity between
the ego and the self is produced. This is, in fact, the initial state or
starting point in any individuation process. However, the opposite phenomenon
can occur, called deflation of consciousness, as I have already developed in
the article Phenomenology
of Spirit. Individuation consists in the progressive assimilation and
differentiation of the contents of the collective unconscious, that is, the
archetypes, by the consciousness.
Another
example of inflation is found in the identification between the contents of a
dogma and the ego. In this case, inflationary behavior is expressed in an
unconscious identity with orthodoxy and is especially noticeable in more or
less fanatical attitudes. The history of religions is replete with examples of
this type and inflation is responsible for the creation of orthodox positions
that confront heterodox ones. In this case there is an identification with the
ideas of Truth, Beauty and Goodness and, therefore, the shadow is cast on the
heterodox positions, and vice versa. The "possessed" person feels
morally superior to the rest of mortals. Both in official Christianity and in
the Gnostic movements we find the inflationary phenomenon of the
"possession" of the consciousness by the numinous effect of an
archetype.
At present,
we Jungian psychologists are observing the expansion of the effects of the
"possession" of consciousness by the action of an archetype, the
archetype of the Goddess, in the extension of feminist ideology. The mass
consciousness (not to mention the null self-consciousness of its members) is
practically non-existent and the effect of the archetype makes itself felt in
the form of a psychic
pandemic (ideology) that spreads and potentiates thanks to the mass media
and social networks. When this happens, what we Jungian psychologists observe
is a terrible disturbance that the unconscious provokes in the collective
consciousness of an epoch. The masses are swept along by archetypal powers in a
movement that precipitates an enantiodromic reaction whose consequences
are as yet unforeseeable.
In the face
of the advance of ideologies the only possible antidote is the strengthening of
the individual, that is, the man whose consciousness maintains a relationship
with his own depth. Such a man can answer affirmatively to the question about
the immediate religious experience, about the relationship that his
consciousness maintains with the depth, that is, with the Mystery, at the same
time Fascinating and Tremendous, whose certainty protects him from dissolution
in a mass ideology.
Bibliography
Delgado González, J.
(2004). El retorno al Paraíso Perdido. La renovación de una cultura.
Soria. Editorial Sotabur.
Delgado González, J.
(2020). Cómo integrar tu sombra.
Madrid. Ed. El hacedor de lluvia.
Jung, C. G.
(2011). Aion. Contribuciones al simbolismo del sí mismo. Madrid. Ed. Trotta Vol.9/2.
Jung, C. G. (2002) Mysterium Coniunctionis. Madrid. Ed. Trotta.
Vol. 14.
